Dharmendra Verma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37683 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2019 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.

DHARMENDRA VERMA Son of Late Kishor Verma Resident of Village - Kali Pahadi, Jaynagar, Ward No.33, P.S.- Kabaiya, Dist.- Lakhisarai. 2.

Narayan Verma Son of Late Kishor Verma. Resident of Village - Kali Pahadi, Jaynagar, Ward No.33, P.S.- Kabaiya, Dist.- Lakhisarai. 3.

Bhagirath Verma @ Bhagirath Prasad Verma Son of Late Satyadev Verma Resident of Village - Kali Pahadi, Jaynagar, Ward No.33, P.S.- Kabaiya, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

4.

Chhotu Verma @ Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar Verma Son of Pil Verma. Resident of Village - Kali Pahadi, Jaynagar, Ward No.33, P.S.- Kabaiya, Dist.- Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mrigendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2019 It appears that earlier vide order dated 06.09.2019, anticipatory bail application with regard to petitioner no. 1 has been dismissed as withdrawn.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, so far petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, the same arises out of Lakhisarai (Kabaiya) P.S. Case No. 261 of 2019, disclosing offences under Sections 147, 149, 32, 304, 354(A), 354(B), 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and others is that while the daughters of the informant were coming after

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37683 of 2019(4) dt.20-09-2019 2/3 clearing their hand and mouth, accused persons started misbehaving with his daughter Putul Devi. On raising alarm, informant and others came but they were assaulted by the accused person, who were armed with rod, lathi and pistol. Accused persons snatched mangalsutra worth Rs. 70,000/- from his daughter and Rs. 3,000/- from the pocket of son of informant.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is case and counter case between the parties, as a complaint petition has also been filed by the petitioners' side. Moreover, no specific allegation has been attributed to the petitioners. Furthermore, the intention of the petitioners can be gathered from the fact that though they were armed with pistol but they have used the butt portion of the pistol in the occurrence.

Heard learned A.P.P. also as well as learned counsel for the informant. They have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that injury caused to one of the persons was found grievous in nature and the occurrence starts, when the petitioners tried to misbehave with one of the daughters of the informant.

Having heard both sides, considering the facts and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37683 of 2019(4) dt.20-09-2019 3/3 circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners rather petitioners may surrender before the court below and make prayer for regular bail and if any such application is filed, the court below will dispose of the same on the merit of the case, without being prejudiced by this order.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunilkumar/- U T